So this is Vinay Prasad. I did not know that guy (not to mention that I am French and I don't care) but now I know that Vinay Prasad is hiding something.
Vinay Prasad may be a liar, because Vinay Prasad is hiding something.
Vinay Prasad, a name to remember. Well wouldn't have happened if Vinay Prasad was whole enough to stand by his claims and not try to hide the idiocies Vinay Prasad said in the past.
Hey, I actually learned Vinay Prasad by heart now!
How does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright holder.
My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.
Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
For those who don't know the specifics of intellectual property law:
Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop.
The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor.
The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.)
"Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons.
All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies.
[update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
A work performed by a Government employee in connection with their job is not copyrightable in the US. (The UK has "Crown copyright", but the US has nothing similar.) Most of these people were Government employees speaking on Government business.
Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google.
Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
* Federal employees
(I've been blocked on FOIAs in Illinois by state and locals claiming wild copyright claims)
The work was recorded prior to him becoming a government employee.
But that work is directly related and highly relevant to his work as a government employee now. If you were right, any politician could silence anyone from speaking about his former transgressions, affairs or whatever.
In fact, a state Rep in California (R) tried that after his bragging was caught by an open mic, he graphically bragged to a colleague about having sex with a lobbyist and then claimed copyright on that "work" and his own name.
That went nowhere, of course.
Although what I’m about to say would be taken to a logical extreme by some, that is just fallacy —
It is of course immaterial that someone later becomes a government employee. If we were to pass a law along these lines, then any expert who later becomes a government employee would not be entitled to the protection of prior intellectual property.
Barack Obama penned many items prior to the commencement of his government employment. His interest in those pieces where he discussed topics relevant to his interests or expertise in constitutional law is not abridged because he entered public service.
In this case with Prasad, there is other nuance, but none of it material to that specific point.
A much more fruitful focus would be on the doctrine of fair use and the examination of the credentials and claims of those who do enter public service.
Just want to point out this is someone (in leadership) from the FDA, not the FCC.
> Prasad, a former hematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, is now *head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which makes him the chief vaccine regulator in the US.*
>My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.
That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
There's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.
So Google is as much at fault here as Prasad.
Plenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.
Yes he owns the copyright. But there may be a valid fair use claim.
Some past judicial criteria:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I’d assume that the “copyright infringement” is just Google’s pretext for removing the channel. They can hardly cite “obedient submission to the Trump gang” as the reason.
If the speech is original enough to be copyrighted, the speaker owns the rights to the content itself. The recording is a separate copyright, but you can't just distribute it without the author's permission for the same reason you can't record a movie in a theater and distribute it (aside from "fair use" exceptions).
Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
> Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article.
Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
>You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving"
Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work.
Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.
Fair use depends on context and purpose, though.
>“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors [Prasad and others] said,”
The condition to believe that the owner of the YouTube channel was in violation of fair use would be to believe that he was lying with the above statement, which there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe. It’s literally criticism, of a public figure no less.
Yes, yes...and the "mission" of my uploading all 374 seasons of South Park to YouTube in 5 minute clips was to preserve history -- to record what Cartman said for posterity.
It's one of the oldest dodges of copyright law there is. You learn about this in high school journalism class (do they even teach that anymore?)
You sound pretty confident that this now-deleted YouTube channel was not using content in a way that would qualify as fair use. Can you clarify why from what you watched?
I can only go off the description of the content from the article and what the person that made the videos said, so I would appreciate more detail from somebody that’s sure that this was the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park.
I personally run into trouble with the “this is the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park” angle with all the “a public figure in charge of pubic health using possibly spurious claims of copyright infringement in scrubbing his public statements about his positions on public health” and the “dozens of views” stuff, but again I have not watched these videos and you have so
Edit: also wait you learned about South Park YouTube rips in high school journalism class? And your takeaway was that archiving things is inherently to be distrusted? In journalism class? Like your journalism teacher told you that collecting information from primary sources and disseminating it in an organized way for the purpose of public good was the same thing as pirating a TV show for clout or profit? That is what they taught you in your school? I am not in high school but I would guess that no they do not teach that, like at all, ever. Like that is not a thing any journalism teacher should have ever taught. That is so antithetical to the concept of journalism that I can’t imagine what a “the opposite of journalism” class would be but it sounds dumb as hell. A class called “Journalism” that teaches you to only say what your subject wants you to say sounds like a machine to intentionally manufacture a stupid human being
Indeed, fair use might apply, but it doesn't change who owns the copyright. And in practice, YouTube rarely cares about fair use as it's simpler and safer for them to ignore it.
They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
> They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public.
This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.
Simply not true.
Howard’s entire channel has now been deleted by YouTube, which cited copyright infringement.
I don't know YouTube's content review policies, and neither of us know the details of this case, but that is consistent with what they do when someone is a obvious repeat offender.
You can't just say "simply not true" when you have no idea what happened.
The information is available for now....
I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use.
The article specifically said this regarding the content:
Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues.
“These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.
> The information is available for now....
OK, so you're speculating.
And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.
Yes, all archivers speculate that the original source of information will at some point become unavailable. On a long time horizon, they have often been correct.
OK, so you're speculating.
Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.
Not all speculation is of equal value.
> Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.
That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.
No, you're speculating that the parent poster can't prove it with their time machine.
That is a reasonable form of speculation. As was the parent poster's speculation.
I'm a little confused about exactly what is being claimed here - how do we know that Vinay is the one who made this "demand"? All the article says about this is:
> When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist.
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe.
Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact.
All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself).
I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn.
Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
> What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
They tell you how to contact the reporter when you get a copyright strike. They encourage you to do it via a logged-in YouTube account; if you don't, there's a confirm your email step.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622
> It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative…
It's a political appointment.
> It's a political appointment.
Could you try to be like, even 10% less knee-jerk partisan?
It's an appointment in the FDA (which requires actual technical knowledge) and Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left, to the point where he was recently chased out of the FDA for being on the left.
> It's an appointment in the FDA…
That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...
> Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left
lmao
Being on Loomer's shitlist is not "documentation".
> That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...
OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
(Google tells me that the position of CBER director is officially non-political, though since Peter Marks was forced to resign, it's now "more political than before".)
> lmao
Yeah, you're not being partisan at all. I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
> OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
> I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
Go on, document it.
> Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
> Go on, document it.
He's said many, many times on his podcast(s), twitter and elsewhere that he's on the left, and that he voted for Sanders. So sure, I could dig each one of those up for you, or you could actually believe it when people on the right attack him for being a "lefist". Like this, for example:
"Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/vinay-prasad-is-a-bernie-sanders...
> Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...
"According to the United States Office of Government Ethics, a political appointee is 'any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head'."
(That'll be Makary.)
> "Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
A WSJ oped is not documentation.
> that he voted for Sanders
Yeah, that's not proof either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters
I'm not going to dig through every hour of his podcast to find all the times that he said himself that he is on the left and voted for Sanders. If you're that motivated, you can easily go listen to him, and then you might actually know something.
> I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. He was a civil servant. Nothing about the position has changed since he left. He resigned, and Makary recruited Prasad.
By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
> I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite.
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant.
Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees.
https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma...
"Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist"
> By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012.
Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines.
> Nothing about the position has changed since he left.
I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.
I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment, where nobody can fire you, lest it become "political". So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha...
Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
> But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss".
Simple fact: That's false.
Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc.
> Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment
Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even.
> So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha…
Marks was fired (well, forced to resign); he had some civil service protection (having been hired as a non-political appointment first), but not for the role he was in. Jha was a political appointment, and thus not subject to civil service protections; his position was done away with entirely after the work was done.
You are citing successful removals to claim people can't be removed, which is… a bit interesting.
You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".
Marks resigned, Prasad was hired. Same position. Arguing that he can be fired is...true, I suppose (in the same way that Marks was "fired"), but non-responsive.
> the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political"
Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say.
> You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".
You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...
Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.
Look, I'm tired of arguing about this, but since you're basically just appealing to authority (a wikipedia article), you should know that the one line you're quoting is actually not supported by the document that it cites [1,2]
Here's the exact definition:
> The definition of “appointee” in the Executive Order covers “every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency.” Executive Order, sec. 2(b). However, “[i]t does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.”
So basically, there's a lot of nuance there, and your wikipedia quote is wrong. Perhaps you should change it to be more accurate (EDIT: nevermind. Did it for you!)
[1] https://www.oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Legal%20Docs/4EAB053F755BE59...
[2] Which, I should note, is a definition made by an executive order. LOL.
EDIT: OK, I have now followed this all the way to Wikipedia's stated source for political appointments ("The Plum Book", 2020 edition [3]), and I do not see this position anywhere in the book. Starts at page 79.
I'm sure you'll find a way to argue about it, but it seems that you are truly, definitively wrong...but who knows, since it changes every four years anyway.
[3] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/pdf/GP...
Your quote, summarized, says essentially “there are even more political appointees than that”. It agrees with me entirely on these roles.
I literally went to the source, and the job isn't in there.
You went to the 2020 list and didn’t find the guy appointed in 2025?
I’m shocked.
OK. It's the only published list, linked directly from the source you keep citing, and obviously definitive for the last guy who had the job, but whatever you say.
EDIT: and finally, finally, here's the public job listing for the CBER [1]. It's a competitive hiring position, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act (2016) [2].
It's not a political appointment. Full stop, end of discussion.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/182615/download
[2] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendmen...
The non-MAGA people that voted for this, why did you?
I don't think you can be a non-MAGA person who voted for this. If you voted for this, you are a MAGA person somewhat definitionally.
[flagged]
You vote for a platform. MAGA was the platform. One might not like that they voted for a platform, but they voted for that one.
I will never get mad at someone for voting 3rd party. Plenty of folks go, "Neither of the two primary platforms are valid for me, this third one is". If the Dems (or Republicans) want to capture those votes, they should figure out what the elements of those third party platforms are. No party should feel obligated to receive a vote just because they are not "the other guy".
> No party should feel obligated to receive a vote just because they are not "the other guy".
You can repeat that all you want but that's not how the reality of current politics work. Democrats have actively campaigned on being "not the other guy" for a very long time.
I've been voting for almost 40 years. Democrats have been running on that platform basically the whole time. Quite frankly, it is how things work. Dems are absolutely leaving votes on the table by running bad platforms. Mamdani is running a very different platform and is absolutely crushing it out there.
And I think the fact that the party is losing more and more often is a clear indication the lack of votes for it are having an impact, and are resulting in new candidates coming forward to capture them.
Obama ran on a platform which he didn't ultimately move forward on once elected, but at least he had a vision that moved people.
there weren't really any good reasons to vote for trump, but there are plenty of crazy ones folks are falling back on lol
Dogs and cats were being eaten, you see, and the other lady cackled too much.
I did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo. The DNC undermining Sanders in 2016 was a big mistake.
Thank you for the answer, what did they want change from? And why would Trump - a former president - provide more change than Harris?
It's strange to me because it seemed like the dominating issues should have been recovering from the economic destruction wrought by covid monetary policy and dealing with the overt Russian threat.
> And why would Trump - a former president - provide more change than Harris?
Famously, Kamala Harris said in an interview on The View that she was a biggest part of the impactful decisions in the Biden administration AND that there’s nothing she would have done differently! https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/video/kamala-harris-...
Making matters worse, when she went on Colbert she said nothing would change other than she would be president rather than Biden: https://youtu.be/6eZw3GzmPGc?feature=shared
Trump has already done many things very differently than in his own first term, and undoubtedly different from the prior administration.
I just skipped through the Colbert one but I didn't hear her say nothing would change. Did I miss it or was it in reference to not unwinding any policies? She very specifically mentioned her 'opportunity economy' initiative which very clearly would be a change.
Trump has definitely done many things differently but the rhetoric wasn't any different in the campaign - immigration, transgender athletes, and the bigliest prosperity you have every seen.
> I just skipped through the Colbert one but I didn't hear her say nothing would change.
At the 30s mark:
Colbert: “under a Harris administration, what would the changes be, and what would stay the same?”
Harris: “sure, we’ll obviously I’m not Joe Biden, and so, uhm, that would be one change, but also it is important to say with 28 days to go I’m not Donald Trump and so when we think about the significance of what this next generation of leadership looks like were I to be elected president, it is about frankly, I love the American people…”
So the only thing she said would change under Harrris administration is that she would be president, and then she deflected into aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas as to how to accomplish.
Further, The View interview was on 10/8/2024 and the Colbert interview one day later. So she even had a chance to originate a recover from the “no change” statement.
I'm not sure how you can hear/read/write that and conclude her answer was "nothing will change". To be sure, it is a very unpracticed attempt to give a political non-answer, but that's not the same as affirmatively saying "this will be four years of the same".
> aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas
That's typical for this interview format, no? I mean, you can be critical of the lack of information density but we're talking about her agenda relative to Biden's - and, to an extent, the status quo Trump created (inflation, diminished foreign influence) since that dictated much of what Biden could do.
> I'm not sure how you can hear/read/write that and conclude her answer was "nothing will change".
I would concede that one cannot, from these two public statements, conclude with 100% confidence that she didn’t have plans for a change in direction.
It is telling, however, that this is the only public information we have on the matter and nothing concrete from her or her campaign ever created a different framing or message (I searched but couldn’t find anything).
I’m open to be proven wrong, and perhaps her autobiography will reveal OR it will confirm what voters interpreted.
At the very least, the whole saga confirmed for me a lack of self-awareness, taking things for granted, and a certain arrogance.
IMO, these are emotional decisions, not rational, and often people aren’t aware of where those feelings originate, as they stem from the subconscious.
IMHO, the elephant in the room is capitalism, but it’s like the church, so sacrosanct you aren’t allowed to question it, so instead people take their anger out on those with less power.
Biden literally campaigned on “nothing will fundamentally change”.
Why would people think his VP would suddenly be different.
Add in her proven unpopularity and the fact that they didn’t run a primary and you have a perfect recipe for a total disaster.
I mean VPs are typically selected to be very different from their running mate. Just think of Trump and Pence. Or Trump and the guy who called him "America's Hitler".
She was selected because he promised a woman of color and she was the obvious choice from that pool.
Can you please connect that to the topic of discussion you started?
The candidates certainly think this is true. Remember that Obama ran on the word "change". The "in you believe in" part was often in small text below, or completely omitted.
Trump tried hard to be perceived as an outsider candidate when trying to return to office. Logically, that makes no sense, but I'm sure their research showed it was important.
Trump 2 admin did bring in a lot of outsiders including our beloved Musk and a bunch of other people from Silicon Valley too, and they got rid of a lot of people from the Trump 1 admin. So logically the outsider candidate thing did make sense.
He didn't name Musk during the campaign. He presumably thought that'd hurt his chances.
Musk campaigned for him pretty actively. I remember a "chance to win a million dollars if you vote" thing Musk ran in Pennsylvania that was controversial. I don't remember if Musk was part of the official campaign team though, probably not. There were a lot of outsiders, many from the tech scene, in his campaign though. Very obvious show of support from tech billionaires pre-election.
> I did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo.
This was a common argument in some of the poorest and most EU-dependent parts of the UK (these generally voted for Brexit). Well, they got change, alright.
Snd Trump undermines the constitution, social security, government agencies etc.
That‘s not change but destruction
Anyone have a working link to the video? The one linked in the article has been taken down.
Perplexity thinks it's https://youtu.be/dHoO7SwVnWI
Which is a clip from https://youtu.be/SX-Lh7mnWYY
I watched some. I mostly seems fairly reasonable but he goes on about taking legal action for giving some 14 yr old a vaccine without asking the parents which seems a bit over the top to me.
Paging Ms. Streisand!
Barbra Streisand, on the white courtesy phone!
For those wondering like me:
You are assuming he is trying to suppress the information, and not just maintaining copyright on his podcast, which is entirely available on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6VZKYkoBLdPxtu7DHkCf...
For now...
All circuits are currently busy, please try again later
[dead]
[flagged]
That's just how large communities operate, especially in heated environments. It's always been this way. That said your example really fails to demonstrate effective community interaction. The argument apparently had value to readers who naturally wanted to verify the claims. You're essentially expecting people on the verge of changing their views to simply take the word of someone challenging those views with a "trust me bro" approach. Rather than engaging meaningfully, you attempt to invalidate their perfectly reasonable request for sources in your response. After reading the linked thread I would also disengage and keep a red flag for your username in my mind.
> That's just how large communities operate, especially in heated environments.
Although this is only half true, you have a point - it does hold for the top social media sites which, curiously enough, end up in the same predicament.
However, this is a phenomenon that needs analysis, explanation and fixing, not just stating as inevitable reality because reality-building has been a thing at least since Karl Rove.
BTW, I did expect the downvoting of my unorthodox and out-of-band comment but I do appreciate your reply to it because in 90% of the cases downvoting is silent and no explanations are given.
Looking at the number of downvotes, I see that I've touched a nerve here, pretty sure due to the mentioning of Agent Smith's gaslighting brigade. Again, I'm not blaming the HN maintainers or the community as whole, as you noted, there's nothing unique here compared to other big social media.
> You're... expecting people... to simply take the word of someone challenging those views with a "trust me bro" approach.
Not at all. I simply shifted some of the burden of proof to the challenger who would otherwise put the speaker in a highly asymmetrical resource trap, similar to a DoS attack. I gave enough justification for it, I could prove it with a 10 word sentence but... does this matter given that we don't use the same notation?
As a result, a proof in my notation appears as "trust me bro" to you, and vice versa.
When you make a claim in a discussion, the burden of proof rests solely on you. No one else is obligated to proof your assertion.
[flagged]
Prasad is not in any way a conservative, he is a bay area liberal.
+ He's still talking about masking in 2025.
+ He wrote articles comparing the US COVID response 1940s Germany.
+ He wants to defund mRNA research.
I don't know man. Given that he's a doctor and all his publicly stated views lie right in the middle of maga it's hard to call him a liberal. Is there something about taxes or something that leads you to believe he's actually a Democrat?
+ He's still talking about masking in 2025.
He is saying that's because another pandemic is coming and there still isn't good evidence that masking reduces the spread of respiratory virus. There are a number of observational studies that show an effect which disappears when you consider only high quality RCTs.[0] Maybe now that Prasad has influence the USA will conduct some good research on the topic and we can get a definitive answer, which will be very useful when the next pandemic lands.
Despite that, it is a shame that Prasad has in other respects gone off the deep end as partially described in TFA.
[0] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
More likely they continue with the policies that just destroyed the CDC. More likely they continue to go forward with policy based on petty grievances because they are fascist morons who want to see people die.
"If he doesn't believe exactly what I believe then he's not a True Scotsman."
I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left.
Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.
Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
Did you read it? It doesn't say what you think it says.
To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research.
None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it.
I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
> To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the research.
> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".
If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…
Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)
Defunding == "taking all the money away".
Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else".
It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.
> It isn't hard to be nuanced.
It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.
The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".
It's literally the definitions of the words.
Look who's suddenly struggling with nuance now.
Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.
Like that five year old JIRA ticket that no one bothers with.
> Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.
And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
> And right there, you acknowledge the difference.
"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"
Do you find people fall for this often?
Also, regardless of whether his other arguments are neutral and technical in between swipes at Biden policy, I don't think a "Bay Area liberal" opens his argument with the suggestion that NIH funding policies should be heavily influenced by the possibility certain classes of treatment might be refused by conservatives sufficiently susceptible to conspiratorial arguments against them...
I’d characterize it as someone who wants to defund mRNA research, because that’s literally what you said he wants to do.
But I’m not a fascist trying to justify the total destruction of the CDC anti-vaxxer dipshits.
Oh, here's comes the "repeating what Republicans say right back to their face is literally 1984!!1!" people...
Why didn't you apply this level of analysis to the parent claim (without evidence) that 'Prasad is a bay area liberal' as if everyone in the bay area had the same political views?
You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.
> Why didn't you apply this level of analysis to the parent claim (without evidence) that 'Prasad is a bay area liberal'
I posted evidence: there was a Wall-Street Journal editorial calling Prasad a liberal. He was attacked by the right for being a leftist. It's all extremely well-documented. It just wasn't enough of an ideological purity test for you, I suppose. I'm sorry that I can't post a binary dump of the man's brain.
(I've also personally listened to dozens of hours of the podcasts, so I know very well where he stands. You're more than welcome to do the same, since it's all out there -- don't take my word for it.)
> as if everyone in the bay area had the same political views? You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.
That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks?
I posted evidence: there was a Wall-Street Journal editorial calling Prasad a liberal
That answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because I was asking you about a reaction to someone else's claim.
That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks?
It's not a compliment. Axe-grinding doesn't make for good discussion, and you seem far more reliant on rhetoric than would be needed if you just explained your point of view up front. It's getting into sealioning territory.
If the key output of a political figure is to promote policies with conservative valence, what's the difference? Maybe at home he thinks to himself "progressive taxation systems are great" and "subsidizing solar energy is good." Good for him if true. But the thing I care about is how people like him impact society and his impact is to promote weird antivax shit that has completely smitten the reactionary right.
In fact, it's why he was (temporarily) booted from the FDA -- the article didn't deign to mention the reason, though it definitely mentioned the outcome.
Prasad was specifically attacked by Laura Loomer for being a "leftist", and resigned rather than cause trouble. Deeply ironic that the Guardian is now trying to attack from the left.
Laura Loomer is an outright fascist who thinks that we should kill 50 million+ hispanic people in the US. Yes, fascists will often refer to people who aren't quite as murderous as they are as leftists.
You'll have to excuse me for not caring what a person who explicitly wants me dead thinks about political labels.
Why is it deeply ironic? Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
This similar to what Fauci and others were blamed for in early days of COVID: The confusing and dishonest message about masking.
Why should Prasad be held to a different standard?
At least with Fauci and his people, the intent was quite good.
> Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Which views were those, exactly? Remember, Loomer was attacking him for not approving an ineffective drug.
These things are not difficult to find: https://vaxopedia.org/2025/05/08/what-has-vinay-prasad-said-...
Edit: For now.
You're quoting this like it's some kind of indictment, but...it isn't controversial. There's nothing there that's surprising, and it's why he was hired into the role. Nobody is trying to memory-hole this.
Prasad is not "anti-vaccine". He's been explicit that he thinks the Covid vaccine was approved for children without sufficient evidence [1]; he thinks that healthy children don't need it, that there's a documented side-effect that may abrogate any positive effect from vaccination [2]; that some of the vaccines on the childhood schedule are excessive [3]; and that ACIP has historically done a very poor job of reviewing vaccines.
You can have legitimate debates over any of these points, but they're not wacko "anti-science" conspiracy theories that remove a person from polite society.
[1] Because it was. It was a joke of an approval, based on extremely weak surrogate endpoints (i.e. antibody titre)
[2] Myocarditis, particularly in boys. This is just a fact.
[3] I actually don't know which ones he thinks are excessive, but you'll note that he says children should get the MMR vaccine.
Transparency is paramount here. That excludes: Misinformation, lies of omission, and obfuscation.
He chose to make to make public statements, relying on his credentials.
He’s now using copyright to obfuscate his publicly made positions.
If anyone is treating it like an indictment, it’s Prasad and his supporters.
If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%.
I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts.
> If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%. I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts.
Indeed. Cherry-picking stats is bad...particularly when you do it, name specific numbers, and then don't cite your sources so that other people can verify them.
I don't know where you got that number, because the rate of myocarditis from either vaccine or virus is nowhere near that high. But the likely source is that you're mis-remembering a paper that blurred together men, women, adults and children in a statistically invalid mix.
Here's an accurate summary of the current data:
That tells me you didn’t look. Meanwhile, your citation is distinctly ignoring what happens when someone actually has covid.
Context matters, and your citation ignores it or wasn’t intended to cover it.
The very definition of cherry picking: Either your choice of citation, or the study itself.
[flagged]
This kind of blind belief in authority is concerning. You should probably examine your biases.
I do see a strong bias, and it’s not the OP.
I won’t go that far, but as someone who always toes that freedom line: The nonsense have veered from the freedom to “swing one’s fist” to “my nose starts here”.
I’ll never endorse forcing vaccination, but that doesn’t mean I endorse willful misinformation.
Nor should I tolerate loss of access to a modern miracle, because of someone’s horribly misguided beliefs.
These people would willingly expose their child to diseases that cause death or lifelong health problems.
They are not fit parents.
I read that vaxopedia link above and I didn't see anything I'd class as "anti-vaccine" viewpoints. He's critical of some particular use cases of the COVID vaccine and he's concerned about developing a culture where healthy young people are getting boosters needlessly. I am not well-informed enough to assess his viewpoints but he's clearly in favour of vaccines, with a handful of reasonable-sounding caveats.
Guardian is merely reporting facts. Odd that you perceive that as an attack...
No evidence for this claim.
At what point in the article is the man's party affiliation discussed?
At one point in the comments did I mention party affiliation?
You used the term SF liberal. That implies democratic party affiliation.
Neither the strings "liberal" or "democr" appear in the article you linked. The word "conservatives" appears once, and it is in the context of the dude aligning himself with conservatives...
RFK Jr. also initially ran as a Democrat until he suspended that version of his presidential campaign in October 2023 and ran as an independent.
Trump himself was a Democrat from 2001-2009, lest anyone forget[1]. He only resorted to the Republican Party after being rejected by everyone else first.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_...
He never had a chance for the nomination.
The lines in certain areas have obviously broken down where the far-right has seized and expanded what used to be a loony-lefty-hippie distrust of vaccines. He's being used by conservatives and appears to be following their playbook.
[flagged]
> My brother in Christ, he's bottoming for Trump.
These two clauses cannot possibly both be sincerely held.
Are you suggesting you think Christians couldn't oppose Trump? It's hard for me to see how anyone who's read the words of Jesus (not the words of Paul, or Moses, but of Jesus Christ) could sincerely support Trump.
I have a friend who is a devout evangelical (son of a preacher) and seems to be a follower of Christ -- who has voted for Trump every time.
I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God).
He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters.
He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY.
When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation.
He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.
If your friend is a devout evangelical, maybe he'll reconsider his opinion about immigration if you direct him towards what the Bible says about immigrants and foreigners.
https://saintmarks.org/justice/renewing-our-covenant/what-do...
Every time a person says they voted to oppose their least favorite party, we should all remember that first-past-the-post voting is the main reason we have a hyper-polarized two party system.
Your friend might have found another party than the Trump party to support tighter immigration and better healthcare policy. Instead, we have millions of people who will vote to destroy democracy rather than vote for someone who supports abortion or permitting trans people to exist.
I absolutely agree that the current system is bad (and we were warned by George Washington himself).
Rank based voting is touted as being a better approach but there's some reasonable criticism of it (too lazy to find and share a link).
Add to the list of things that need to change is campaign financing -- it's literally legalized bribery.
All of this change is possible, the problem is that those in power will do everything in their power to preserve their control.
I grew up with a ranked voting system. It has effectively been a two party system regardless. I don't think people know how it works and just treat it like first past the post.
Proportionate representation seems like it's probably better. I think everyone should skip the intermediate steps and jump straight to approval voting.
If I really geek out on voting systems, the one I prefer the most is the River method, which is a ranked ballot but fixes some of the issues of Instant Runoff and allows equal ranking of multiple candidates.
Any ranked system has some issues yes. I forget which criteria it fails but they are all better than FPTP.
My issue with unranked approval voting is that IMO very few people have equal preference of lots of candidates. I think that it forces people to express themselves in a way that doesn't reflect their true preference, and that's a bad thing.
Yes, I think multimember districts with proportional representation makes the most sense.
For anyone interested, here is a site to visualize the River (and other) methods. https://votingmethods.net/cond/
One quick note: there is a single political party that calls for banning alternatives to FPTP: Republicans. While party insiders at the DNC might not like the idea of diluted power, they haven't tried to ban voting reform. Nor have they vocally opposed campaign finance reform like Republicans.
> effectively religious and conservative
Your friend should have stuck to his guns, because that old saw is masking the truth: new migrants who become eligible to vote, and their birthright citizen children, overwhelmingly and reliably vote Democrat. And why wouldn't they? They perceive Democrats are who let them in and Democrats give them the entitlements they disproportionately depend on.
It is chicanery to pretend otherwise. It's also a brilliant plan and I congratulate the DNC on the long play. It works out great for their donors as well, as immigration tends to drive down labor costs for things like construction and agriculture.
> the entitlements they disproportionately depend on.
[citation needed]
This keeps falling on deaf or ignorant ears, but it’s a huge mistake to view Trump from a regular Conservative vs Liberal lens.
He’s breaking the system, and I believe many of the WSJ crowd—they were just as caught-off guards asb the liberal circles—will be in for an ugly surprise when it finally sinks it what’s happening.
He rather loudly demands total fealty from anyone he appoints or hires.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Except zero Republicans want that.
You're doing that classic thing where you're taking republican views, which are legitimately insane, and trying to rationalize them and make them sound better.
Its okay, the Republicans are actually insane and stupid. Were allowed to call them insane and stupid when they do insane and stupid things. We're allowed to repeat the things they say back.
We don't have to euphamize everything.
It would be easier to believe conservative arguments for "extra testing" were in good faith if another cornerstone of their philosophy wasn't cutting regulation and red tape.
We cut through red tape when we needed to.
As if you have the faintest clue how much testing was done, or have the capacity to understand that testing in the first place. These complaints are hollow, transparent bullshit, and they’re always pushed by people who will contort themselves into pretzels to not accept any evidence provided that doesn’t confirm their priors.
Citation needed on your definition of adequate testing, gene therapy products, etc.
The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
Funny that you mentioned Aduhelm, because Prasad has many, many videos blasting the FDA for approving that mess.
> The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats.
This is just revisionist history. Aduhelm was rubber-stamped by Peter Marks' CBER, under Biden:
https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unp...
(Marks started at the FDA under Obama, BTW.)
Outside reviewers had recommended rejecting the drug as early as November 2020. The FDA's own statisticians agreed.
>Citation needed
Okay, here is the president of Bayer Pharacutical division calling the covid mRNA a gene therapy, because it is:
https://youtu.be/IKBmVwuv0Qc?t=507
And here is the definition of vaccine being rewritten to include mRNA gene therapies:
It's only a vaccine if you like redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean.